Email To The Editor, Page 82

I really enjoyed Bob M's "The Best Feast Ever" piece. Excellent job,
Robert! And very representative of the futility of observing the FOT in
some of the sleazy cities where "God placed his name". Actually, it was
equally futile in even the most exotic locations, but at least there was
something to do and see.

This piece hit home for me especially, since I also attended the Fresno
feast, and since I live just a few miles from Fresno and actually work
there. In fact, as I was reading the article, I was sitting at my desk not
ten blocks from the convention center where Bob attended that feast.

Don't get me wrong -- Fresno is a great place to live and work...but you
wouldn't want to visit there.

Again, Bob, great article!

John B

----- Original Message -----
From: "Billy B"
To: <editor@hwarmstrong.com >
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 11:54 AM
Subject: Would like to see video

Hello. I'm having trouble obtaining the video "In bed with Garner Ted" which was shown on Geraldo from
the newsgroups and would appreciate it if you could help me obtain it. Thank you very much.

Billy B

Billy,

Take a look at GTA_and_Geraldo again. Should help you out:)
Regards,
Editor

Just a quick 'Thank you' for making it possible for me
to see the clip from Geraldo. It amazes me how he can
seem so sincere in his preaching and television show.
Although I was never a part of his organization or his
father's, nevertheless I did watch his program and
read a lot of the materials. I'm glad there are people
like you out here helping to expose the truth because
it is so easy sometimes for people to get sucked into
all that stuff, especially when the person seems so
sincere as Mr. Armstrong did. Now I'm more careful
than ever. Again, thank you.

Billy B

Bill,
You're welcome man... You got the clip, I take it?
Good deal.

There be some folks out there who want to suck the life out of you in the name of Gawd. I think I'm against them in general. Yeah. Pretty sure.
Be well, be free. Think and prosper!

Regards,
Editor

To Jeff Diehl:

Thank you for your gracious note of December 30, and I wish you well in
life's endeavors. Your apologies are accepted, and I apologize as well for
my harsh comments. I blew my stack, and it showed. I could have gotten my
points across without the name calling. Also, I hope this isn't the last
time we hear from you. The whole exchange was very interesting.

In the world of Armstrongism, there is enough blame to go around. When I was
first exposed to the Worldwide Church of God, I was a teenager looking for
answers to life's most important questions. How did God want me to live? How
could I make sense out of the confusion that is the Bible? Was there life
after death? Along came an organization that had answers to all of my
questions in neat little packages, and lots more besides. I dove into a
study of all of the church literature I could get my hands on, and I was
hooked.

Like many others, I started attending services, where I heeded the
exhortations of the ministers to avoid studying dissident literature. My
first pastor, Frank McCrady, Jr., railed against "The Ambassador Report" and
"Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web." He and other ministers warned us that to
read dissident literature would expose us to the lures of Satan, and we
could be led out of the church by wolves in sheep's clothing and lose
eternal life. Like a puppy-dog, I listened, and did not seek out opposing
views, and I ignored family members who warned me about the WCG.

I ignored the first tenet of the educated consumer: caveat emptor, or "let
the buyer beware." I abdicated my responsibility to check out the WCG
organization before I committed myself to it, and paid dearly as a result.
In my almost 20 years as a member of the WCG, I tithed over $100,000 and
sacrificed many opportunities for professional development in order to
devote time to church activities such as weekly Bible studies and
Spokesman/Graduate clubs. Others paid an even higher price. I was lucky in
that I completed my college education before becoming actively involved in
the church. Others sacrificed higher education, expecting to be whisked away
to the place of safety in 1972. Some ended happy marriages in their zeal to
obey God, only to see the divorce & re-marriage doctrine changed so Herbert
Armstrong could marry a young divorcee. Some heeded the warnings of the
ministry and refused medical treatment for life-threatening illnesses and
paid the ultimate price.

We chose to submit to the ministry. We put ourselves at their mercy. To
quote a tired old cliché, nobody put a gun to our heads. Most ministers were
abusive, and we accepted the abuse. We could have left any time we chose.
And now many of us have. Those of us who choose to contribute to the Painful
Truth do so for different reasons. Some just want to vent. Others want to
warn those considering membership in one of the offshoots what they are
getting into. Still others want to help those struggling with the
after-effects of experience in a malignant cult. For most, it is a
combination of these and other reasons. Just because we record our
experiences for the web doesn't mean that we are wallowing in self-pity or
anger.

And just because nobody held a gun to our heads doesn't mean the ministry is
without blame. The average Worldwide Church of God "minister" could have
been just that, a minister. The word "minister" means servant. They could
have actually served. They could have helped those in their care to grow
spiritually. They could have counseled the troubled, comforted the sick and
grieving, and taught the truth instead of lies. Instead, the overwhelming
majority of ministers chose to abuse and take advantage of those who trusted
them. They taught the members that they must obey Herbert Armstrong no
matter what. They participated in Armstrong's deception, and they shared in
the spoils. Ministers also had a choice, to do good or evil. Most of them
chose evil. You can read the consequences of their choices on the pages of
the Painful Truth. They deserve the condemnation they receive on these
pages.

Personally, I know of only two ministers who really cared about the members
of their congregations. I won't mention their names because I don't want to
embarrass them by revealing their association with the Worldwide Church of
God. From what I am reading on the Painful Truth and Missing Dimension web
sites, Dennis Diehl was probably one of the rare few who actually cared
about the members in his congregations. If this is true, I am sorry. It's a
shame that a good man will be judged guilty by people who don't know him.
Unfortunately, most WCG ministers were pompous blowhards with inflated
opinions of themselves. If one meets a WCG minister and assumes he is a
self-important asshole, 99 times out of 100 his assumption will be correct.
The reputations of the 1% suffers because of the other 99.

That's the Worldwide Church of God for you. The only people who prosper are
the most unscrupulous. In Friedrich Hayek's book, The Road to Serfdom, there
is a chapter entitled "Why the Worst Get on Top." Although he wrote about
totalitarian states like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, it applies equally
well to the Worldwide Church of God, which was a miniature totalitarian
state, run on the principles practiced most successfully by Stalin and
Hitler. Anyone who doubts this should read any book about everyday life in
Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, or even Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Herbert
Armstrong was its Führer, or General Secretary or Generalissimo. Hayek
writes:

"Where there is one common all-overriding end, there is no room for any
general morals or rules. To a limited extent we ourselves experience this in
wartime. But even war and the greatest peril had led in the democratic
countries only to a very moderate approach to totalitarianism, very little
setting aside of all other values in the service of a single purpose. But
where a few specific ends dominate the whole of society, it is inevitable
that occasionally cruelty may become a duty; that acts which revolt all our
feeling, such as the shooting of hostages or the killing of the old or sick,
should be treated as mere matters of expediency; that the compulsory
uprooting and transportation of hundreds of thousand should become an
instrument of policy approved by almost everybody except the victims; or
that suggestions like that of a conscription of women for breeding purposes
can be seriously contemplated. There is always in the eyes of the
collectivist a greater goal which these acts serve and which to him
justifies them because the pursuit of the common end of society can know no
limits in any rights or values of any individual.

"But while for the mass of the citizens of the totalitarian state it is
often unselfish devotion to an ideal, although one that is repellent to us,
which makes them approve and even perform such deeds, this cannot be pleaded
for those who guide its policy. To be a useful assistant in the running of a
totalitarian state, it is not enough that a man should be prepared to accept
specious justification of vile deeds; he must himself be prepared actively
to break every moral rule he has ever known if this seems necessary to
achieve the end set for him. Since it is the supreme leader who alone
determines the ends, his instruments must have no moral convictions of their
own. They must, above all, be unreservedly committed to the person of the
leader; but next to this the most important thing is that they should be
completely unprincipled and literally capable of everything. They must have
no ideals of their own which they want to realize; no ideas about right or
wrong which might interfere with the intentions of the leader. There is thus
in the positions of power little to attract those who hold moral beliefs of
the kind which in the past have guided the European peoples, little which
could compensate for the distastefulness of many of the particular tasks,
and little opportunity to gratify any more idealistic desires, to recompense
for the undeniable risk, the sacrifice of most of the pleasures of private
life and of personal independence which the posts of great responsibility
involve. The only tastes which are satisfied are the taste for power as such
and the pleasure of being obeyed and of being part of a well-functioning and
immensely powerful machine to which everything else must give way.

"Yet while there is little that is likely to induce men who are good by our
standards to aspire to leading positions in the totalitarian machine, and
much to deter them, there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and
unscrupulous. There will be jobs to be done about the badness of which taken
by themselves nobody has any doubt, but which have to be done in the service
of some higher end, and which have to be executed with the same expertness
and efficiency as any others. And as there will be need for actions which
are bad in themselves, and which all those still influenced by traditional
morals will be reluctant to perform, the readiness to do bad things becomes
a path to promotion and power. The positions in a totalitarian society in
which it is necessary to practice cruelty and intimidation, deliberate
deception and spying, are numerous. Neither the Gestapo nor the
administration of a concentration camp, neither the Ministry of Propaganda
nor the S.A. or S.S. (or their Italian or Russian counterparts), are
suitable places for the exercise of humanitarian feelings. Yet it is through
positions like these that the road to the highest positions in the
totalitarian state leads."

This explains why there was no room at the top of the WCG hierarchy for
decent human beings. Only ruthless, unscrupulous hirelings who were willing
to sell their souls to Herbert W. Armstrong and ruin those who would
question or resist his authority prospered in his system. Only those who
remain ruthless and exploitative continue to thrive in the mother church and
its many offshoots. Everybody else gets hurt. This is why so many ministers
were bad people. You had to be a dirt-bag to qualify. Those few with
scruples who somehow slipped through the cracks never went very far in the
hierarchy.

I hope this clarifies matters. Although the ordinary member was responsible
for his choices, so were the ministers. Like Adam and Eve in the Garden of
Eden, they were given the opportunity to choose good or evil. Most chose
evil. If your father was one of the few who chose to do good, my apologies.
Remember, most of us don't know your father. From my vantage point, all I
can do is judge based on my experiences with other ministers. If I am wrong
in my judgment, it is because your father was an exception. In the Worldwide
Church of God, it is natural to assume that a minister was goon for the
Armstrong and Tkach families, because almost all of them were.

Regards,
MAM

8 Jan 04

I was around WCG during childhood. My grandmother and grandfather first listened to it on radio and grandmother eventually started attending. My mother then started reading articles and few years later attended. By that time they had more open church policy instead of 'members only.' Which does seem odd to me. Shouldn't everyone be welcome. Sinner or Saint, after all judge not lest ye be judged.

Thankfully, I was one of the lucky (children) ones and wasn't forced to go. Though I did attend once in a while and went to a few Church dances, etc. as a teenager. Even had a Church boyfriend. Thankfully, yet again, that didn't work out as he was a complete and total jerk.

So-called God's Only True Church members did strand my mother along the road one Saturday, in their race to get to church on time. And wouldn't even have stopped and told my brother where she was (they drove right by the house, not even out of their way) -- they happened to see him at the stop sign. Another member even laughed at the amount of money she put into the offering envelope at one of their 'Holydays'.

This was during the 70s, so The Church wasn't quite as strict at that point. Thankfully, both my parents weren't into this cult. My mother read The Plain Truth About Child Rearing (or I should say, Child Abuse). I was luckier than a lot of the unfortunate children, as the level of physical punishment was not as extreme as what others experienced. Again, thankfully, I had an alcohol father, who wasn't interested in church. He made our life hell, but I do believe it would have been worse if he'd been into 'religion' instead of just funneling down alcohol.

My grandfather didn't claim to be a Christian, but he did listen to and 'preach' WCG. He molested me as a young teenager. Do I hate him? No. Do I care he's dead? No. Do I resent some of my mother's treatment of us, believing she was doing what was right according to Herbie the pervert? Yes. She is now dead as is my father. I called one of the member of the Church, she was so kind and thoughtful. Telling me she hoped my mother didn't go to hell, God loves everyone and doesn't want them to go to hell. I told her to shut up and slammed down the phone. (This is the same group of people that stranded my poor mentally ill mother along the road). I wrote her a scathing letter, telling her going to Church didn't make her a Christian anymore than going to a garage made her a car. Also, included the fact that they were child abusers, when their children were growing up.

Reading the Bible is suppose to prove itself. However, I have found in reading it, with no desire one way or the other for it to be true, increases my questions, not decreases them. Below are a few issues I've never heard addressed by any Church. I admit they neither prove or disprove the existence of God.

1. How do we have different races since everyone (according to Bible) we all would have to be descendents of Noah and his family. Everyone else was killed in flood. Weren't his sons and their wives all Hebrew or Jewish. My point being, I'm sure if they were the only people at that time deserving of life, they wouldn't have married different races. (Here, I am assuming the Church is right in their doctrine of interracial marriage). Two same race people DO NOT produce different race children.

3. I do not see how an Ark could have been built to house all the existing animals (2 of each kind). There's are millions of different animals. Also, how did they get to the where the Ark was located. For example, Polar bears would have had to swim across an ocean.

6. And in order to stop them all he had to do was change the fact that they spoke different languages. Surely, people bright enough to build this impressive Tower, would be able to learn different languages and go back to the Tower building.

Deb -- Some things just defy rational explanation, huh? You mentioned that "Reading the Bible is suppose to prove itself." That is the kind of odd, circular, thinking that religion fosters.... Scary stuff.

That's good in my book:) Religion in general, and these religious conmen in specific, sometimes make me see a Monty Python Movie in my head..... I'd better not dwell on this thought, as I'm seeing Herbert riding a... with someone close at his heels with "Horse-hooves-sound-makers" ....the old campus at Big Sandy being assaulted by man eating rabbits and such..;)

The section provided for ministerial apologies does not seem to grow
very much, but why should it? Why should anyone claiming to preach
Christianity, regardless of its brand name, owe any apologies to anyone?
After all, they are only imitating the godfather of modern Christianity,
Paul. Can anyone show me a scriptural passage in which he apologizes to the
apostles or to anyone for the following?: (1) Stephen's stoning (Acts 8:1);
(2) a Gestapo mentality (Acts 8:3, 9:1-2, 26:10-11; Gal. 1:13); (3) speaking
falsehoods (Rom. 3:7); (4) inability to understand his own actions (Rom.
7:15-19); (5) preaching the necessity of foolishness (1 Cor. 1:26-29); (6)
sentencing a misdoer to be killed (1 Cor 5:5); (7) admitting he was in it
for the money (1 Cor.9:14); (8) admitting he would rather die than be
deprived of boasting (1 Cor 9:15-16); (9) admitting he was a panderer (1
Cor. 9:19-23); (10) using the "can't out give God" ploy (2 Cor. 9:6-8); (11)
robbing other churches to make it look like he was serving free (2 Cor.
11:7-9); (12) admitting to being crafty (2 Cor 12:16); (13) admitting he
would be severe in his authority "which the Lord has given me for building
up. . .",(2 Cor. 13:10) or, " I am doing this for your own good"; (14)
preaching that wisdom is futile and that true wisdom comes from foolishness
(1 Cor. 3:18-20) (15) preaching that "love is blind". (1 Cor. 13:7); (16)
boasting of being a fool who does not speak with God's authority. (2 Cor.
11: 16-19).

     Paul had other qualities that would endear him to his imitators. He
claims to preach "the Gospel" and yet speaks very little or nothing about
the actual life, ministry and teachings of Jesus. Instead he gives us a
laundry list of his new doctrines and spends most of the rest of his
"Epistles" defending them. He expected everyone to believe him to be
infallible and above any criticism. Indeed, he proclaims all opposition to
him as devilish. Those who oppose him are "counterfeit apostles" and
"dishonest workers" (2 Cor. 11:13) and Satan's servants disguised as
"servants of uprightness" (2 Cor. 11:14-15). He even wishes that his
opponents would "mutilate themselves." (Gal. 5:12) Odd behavior for one who
had only shortly before been instrumental in murdering people of "The Way?"
Maybe not when your method of ministering is "taking in by deceit" (2 Cor.
12:16) and propagandizing.

     Paul's imitators can also be heartened by his example of narcissism.
He claims to have been crucified with Christ yet exclaims, "Nevertheless I
live." (Gal. 2:20) He is celebrating his life, not that of Christ. "He
gave himself for ME." Paul wants his followers to forget his desire to kill
Jesus and his eventual hideous death by the hidden hands of the Pharisees
who hated him so. Instead Paul would have us think of Christ's death as a
"celebration" and that "Christ died for Paul." He says it is not really
"him" that you see, the "he" was crucified, and it is "not I but Christ"
living in his body. He is claiming that he is essentially Christ, and for
this reason he is superior to all who oppose him. When he survived the
viper attack (Acts 28:1-6) and the natives declared that he must be a god,
there is not a word to the contrary from Paul.   Since "Christ" lived in
Paul, this "Christ" was calling the shots. Small wonder that Elmer Gantry
wannabes gravitate toward Paul instead of Jesus who told those who desire to
be first "shall be last of all." (Mark 9:35) You can't build a cult on that
philosophy.

     As a side note, I quote from the article "Jefferson and his
Contemporaries" by Jaroslav Pelikan in the Beacon Press edition of THE
JEFFERSON BIBLE: "Like other Enlightenment rationalists, Jefferson was
convinced that the real villain in the Christian story was the apostle Paul,
who had corrupted the religion OF Jesus into a religion ABOUT Jesus, which
thus had, in combination with the otherworldly outlook of the Fourth Gospel,
produced the monstrosities of dogma, superstition, and priestcraft, which
were the essence of Christian orthodoxy. The essence of authentic religion,
and therefore of the only kind of Christianity in which Jefferson was
interested, needed to be rescued from these distortions, so that the true
teaching of Jesus of Nazareth might rise from the dead page - the only kind
of resurrection Jefferson was prepared to accept." (pp. 153-154)

     Paul was Orwellian long before Orwell: Wisdom comes through
foolishness; knowledge is anathema to faith and strength comes through
weakness. Irrationality tends to boosts self confidence. "Ignorance more
frequently begats confidence than does knowledge." (Charles Darwin) Such
are the wiseguys of the godfather of modern Christianity. Why should we
expect anything more out of them than what we see in their progenitor?

JWG

I am not comfortable posting this here. The PT site is not a bible-study website in any way, and after all the bible-versing here, I kinda wanted to toss it.

But the message here, is one I can agree on, in general: Paul is the Father of the christian church, in many ways. Not this undocumented "jesus". Some conman got his hands on an idea and ran with it....

Just as HWA was (and still IS in many ways) the "apostle" or "father", representing this same "jesus" to many people. There are many Pauls out there... Flurry et al?..... Orwellian or not, I suspect Paul was a conman as well.....

(Don't bother, all ye christian hoardes who wish to debate this with me.... I'm not debating that which can't be proven, and that "Book" is just that..... If you wish to debate JWG, I'll consider letting him know for you....)

Just take JWG's entry here as food for thought, or not, but I agree with the analysis:

2004 3:09 PM
Subject: Re email from JWG

The "ministerial apology" letter by JWG is very enlightening. Several
years ago it occurred to me that HWA and Paul had a great deal in common, in
particular the preaching of opinions and establishment of doctrines that ran
contrary to the views of "mainstream" christianity (i.e., John, James, and
the other apostles). But I was never able to put it together as JWG did.
Hats off to an excellent point. Anyone who accepts the bible as true and
attempts to practice christianity should take note.

Editor: You done good by posting this. It needed to be said.

John B

----- Original Message -----
From: John K
To: editor@hwarmstrong.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 7:22 PM
Subject: material on roderick c meredith and rodney gillies king

Hi,
Have been reading your web site recentlyas a new acquaintee to your site. I've found some of the material interesting, others intriguing and all thought provoking. I'm curious as to how you've managed to obtain and publish the material on HWA's (alleged) incest with his daughter. I don't disagree with you, I just haven't read any comments that support the allegations, from his daughter. So if you have any sources you can direct me to, I'd appreciate your help.

On another and related matter, do you have any material regarding Roderick C Meredith's activity and behaviour towards members of "his" churches, ie Global/Spherical and on "Living (as opposed to the dead)? Similarly do you have any material on a recent hireling his group has engaged in Australia, one named Rodney Gillies King. Seems he's a well-seasoned church traveller, having gone to United from Worldwide, to David Hulme's group from United and now to "Living" (dead?) from United.

Regards
John K

Same answer as above, but with a caveat: I don't spend my days tracking these folks, so the PT site is not the most up-to-date-what's-currently-happenin'-in-WCG+-journal around. That isn't the point of this site, though we DO have an interest. There is a lot of value in those sites that DO this, however, and they do it well. These WCG spitoffs, uh.... Splitoffs... are just as damaging as the original cult, in my opinion, if not worse, and we encourage any and all to fight against religious conmen in any form. So I endorse and recommend http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~gavinru/index.htm as another place for you to inquire. I might also add http://www.thejournal.org/ for current news of WCG-member folks. Tell Dixon I said hello:)

No sir, you haven't. There is good call for that. Now it's your call to go and look for that info on "why" that might be..... Nothing comes easy. Search the site.....and others.

----- Original Message -----
From: "ARTHUR F"
To: <editor@hwarmstrong.com >
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 11:41 AM
Subject: GTAwentaway

Garner Ted was just a man like I am with skin & bone.No man can live
completely sin free in this earthly body.He must had been a false
teacher. Right? I will ask you something that John Lennon asked on one
of his albums......How do you sleep?

Hi Arthur,

Yes, he was just a man, like me. Like you.

I will tell you that I don't deal in the realm of "sin", but of common
sense.
Yes, he was a teacher. A good one, in my opinion. I learned a lot from
Garner Ted Armstrong. In fact? If it weren't for him? I wouldn't be who I am
today!

How do I sleep? Usually on my right side. At least that's how I wake up most
of the time.

But you meant something else, I suspect. Why not just ask me an honest
question, straight up, and not beat around the bush, eh?

Regards,
Editor

----- Original Message -----
From: "jones ja____"
To: <editor@hwarmstrong.com >
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 3:53 PM
Subject: WWCOG current

Just thot you'd like to know that I ran across current
WWCOG website, and they still solicit donations! Why
don't they understand they need to make amends to all
the former members they abused so?

---Ex Member

Hi jones,

It's all a scam. But voluntary donations are just that: voluntary.....

I would solicit donations too, if I were them.... Don't they all? Why shouldn't they? It makes sense...
They want your money. They want big cars and new HDTV and the latest from Dell computers. (Sorry, Mike, your computers are cool with me and us.... Just an example, ok?)

It isn't up to THOSE WCG+ and other religious Priests to stop abusing people, jones... it's up to US to stop ALLOWING it to happen in the first place......
Help make it stop.

Last thing... You mentioned...make amends.
Yes they should. No it won't happen. You have a better chance of seeing christ.
Living well, and free, is the best revenge. Please do that....

Editor

----- Original Message -----
From: Marc Coleman
To: editor@hwarmstrong.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 6:56 PM

Funny you missed the genocide in Rawanda where 800,000 people were killed...fucking whitetrash prick

Marc,
Funny that I "missed it", or didn't "comment on it" or what?

I was personally aware of it. Why would you think I wasn't?

I guess I have no option but to consider your comment "fucking whitetrash prick" to be aimed at me. That's ok.

Your words speak more than anything I could ever say, Marc.
Editor...

PS -- Here's your email address in public. Just in case your fans have lost touch with ya....

You mention HWA's incest on your web site. I have heard of this accusation before but have never seen a shred of proof. Another ex-WCG minister, William Dankenbring also talks about this on his web site but offers no proof - just hearsay. Is there any actual proof to this? Thank you.

Editor at the PT <Editor@hwarmstrong.com > wrote:
Robert,
I would recommend starting your search here: http://www.hwarmstrong.com/ incest_herbertconfesses.htm

and then through the rest of the site, using the Search function if necessary.
Regards,
Editor

Thank you for your reply. I have read all the material on your web site, as well as the excerpts from the Robinson book relating to the incest accusation, and still do not see any proof. The Bible (for those who believe in it) says that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall a matter be established. Since there is no public or documented confession by either HWA or Dorothy, and GTA is not a witness to the incest because he was not there (what he had to say was either hearsay or a lie - and I would tend to think it is a lie based on his own public record of sexual misconduct) the matter cannot be established.

While it appears to me that you want to believe that this accusation is true, and I will say that I do not want to believe it is true, if we are both honest we must admit the possibility that the whole thing is a fabrication by one or two children bent on destroying their father for whatever reason(s). If you have any other evidence I would like to hear it because I seek the truth regardless of what I might want to believe.

Actually, Robert, I'd like nothing better than to have proof that these allegations are false. The Painful Truth wants just that -- the truth of the matter. As the "Great One" said, "Where there's smoke, there's fire...", however, and there was a lot of smoke concerning HWA. The story is here as documentation, as history, and to this day, I've not seen any "proof" that either HWA nor his daughter denied the story.

"...if we are both honest we must admit the possibility that the whole thing is a fabrication by one or two children bent on destroying their father for whatever reason(s). "

Yes, I can admit that possibility. Considering the children, (or at least one of them), I'd call it a very possible scenario. But then again, you haven't proven to ME this is the case either.

Well, Robert -- here we sit: 20+ years after David Robinson's Tangled Web, the Ambassador Report; having witnessed (I assume you are a witness to it) the sinking of the Armstrong religion, the splintering of the remnants into bitter rival factions, and certainly ~60 years after-the-fact of this allegation.

This is 2004, and here we are discussing this still. All the more reason why sites like the Painful Truth and Ambassador Watch http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~gavinru/watch.htm are valuable.

Your contributions to this page are more than welcome. We will not publish your full name unless you attack us and make threats, then you go on the "Hate Mail" page and we will publish your name and email address.

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50
51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70
71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50
51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70
71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50
51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70
71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50
51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70
71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90